I want to point out, again, that I’m not necessarily saying moderates are bad or I’d never, ever vote for one. It’s just the term “conservative.” You can frame Giuliani as a better alternative to Hillary, or as someone with a better strategy for the War on Terror, or as a proven executive who will bring competence to the office. But I can’t label him a “conservative” without feeling like I’m abusing the term. Rep. and former Sheriff Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) is a good law-and-order guy too, but he’s not a conservative, and I don’t think he’d call himself one either.
I did not say that Giuliani was like Feinstein — I was just pointing out that some Democrats are quite strong on crime, but still no one would call them “conservatives.” If you look at Feinstein’s record, particularly her work on extradition of Mexican nationals who murder people and then flee the U.S., it is quite good. Before she got the memo from the DNC, she was even going after Carol Lam over immigration cases, you’ll recall.
And there is more than one definition of “Law and Order,” too — it isn’t always a conservative thing. Many of Feinstein’s initiatives (renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, for example) rely on taking away people’s guns in order to fight crime…Okay, I guess that is a bit like Giuliani in New York, but that’s not the comparison I intended.
And “Guns-Babies-Taxes” — it’s a rule of thumb, it’s not meant to be a rigorous definition.